Shah Bano's request that the Supreme Court reverse its decision in her case is unprecedented and raises a lot of disturbing questions. Her changed stand has proved that fundamentalism is as strong as ever in the Muslim community.

advertisement

Tavleen Singh

January 22, 2014

ISSUE DATE: December 15, 1985

UPDATED: April 3, 2014 14:06 IST

She is an old woman with a deeply lined face whose outstanding features are a pair of deep-set grey eyes. Frail and birdlike, she does not seem the type of person whose actions have caused tremors far beyond the narrow confines of the Muslim quarter of Indore where she lives.

But when Shah Bano, 65, appealed to the courts for maintenance from the man who had divorced her and the Supreme Court, in the most talked about judgement in recent history upheld her claim, a storm broke out over the head of the rather retiring woman who had only asked that the Rs 25 a month she was getting from her well-to-do ex-husband be raised to Rs 179.20.

Defenders of women's rights were quick to applaud the Supreme Court's decision. But their joy was short-lived. In a dramatic turnaround, Shah Bano called a press conference last fortnight to announce that she would like the Supreme Court to withdraw its judgement.

"I did it because the priests told me that the judgement was interference in the Shariat. When I asked for maintenance I did not know that it was haram(forbidden) in Islam. I am an illiterate old woman so how was I to know all this. I thought I was doing the right thing but they have explained to me that it was wrong so now I understand."

Ironically, it was not Shah Bano who took the matter to the Supreme Court but her husband Mohammed Ahmed Khan. Khan appealed against a judgement of the Madhya Pradesh High Court awarding Shah Bano maintenance on the grounds that as a Muslim he was not obliged to pay maintenance beyond a period of three months and ten days after the divorce.

For the defenders of Islam the judgement was a clear sign that the
Indian Government had every intention of interfering in Muslim personal
law - which Muslims believe was fashioned not by man but by God.

The Supreme Court thought otherwise and a five-judge bench headed by former chief justice Y.V. Chandrachud ruled: "The liability imposed by Section 125 to maintain close relatives who are indigent is founded upon the individual's obligation to the society to prevent vagrancy and destitution. This is the moral edict of the law and morality cannot be clubbed with religion." The judgement was referring to Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code which held that even a Muslim women had the right to maintenance.

That was it, as far as the defenders of Islam were concerned. Here, to them, was a clear sign that the Indian Government had even' intention of interfering in Muslim personal law - which Muslims believe was fashioned not by man but by God and therefore cannot be changed. The prime minister inadvertently added fuel to the fire, say Muslims in Indore, by remarking in Parliament around the time of the judgement that he hoped that in the 21st century Indians would be recognised as Indians and not as a collection of sects.

"Maybe the prime minister was just making a harmless remark, but here in Indore all Muslims began to feel that Islam was being threatened. So we went to our religious leaders for guidance," says Iftekhar Ansari, a Congress(I) worker and president of a progressive Muslim organisation called Parwaz.

The religious leaders of the city, namely Abdul Ghaffar Noori, president of the Anjuman-Islahul-Muslimeen, an organisation which interprets Islamic law and the Mufti-e-Malwa. Mohammed Habib Yar Khan Oadri responded by whipping up feelings of alarm in the community so that before anyone knew it a wave of religious fundamentalism spread throughout the Muslim quarters of lndore.

"I did it because the priests told me that the judgement was an interference in the Shariat. When I asked for maintenance, I did not know that it was haram (forbidden) in Islam."Shah Bano

Noori, a large florid man who bears on his forehead the dark mark of a man who touches his head to the ground in prayer five times a day, says what really upset was not just the judgement but the fact that the chief justice had presumed to try and interpret the Shariat. "He quoted some ayats from the Koran and misinterpreted them which he had no right to do.In Islam it is written that a woman stops being a wife after three months and ten days of a divorce. After that if she accepts money from the man who washer husband It is haram. You see when a man supports his wife he is actually paying for using her. If he stops using her then he cannot pay."

The Mufti-e-Malwa, who is the head priest of Indore, went one step further and said it was even forbidden for a man to look upon his divorced wife, lie said that Section 125 of the CRPC granted maintenance on the grounds that a woman was entitled to he supported by her husband till she married again. "This means that you are still considering her to be the man's wife after a divorce. This is totally against the teaching of Islam, it is interference in our persona] code," he says. Imams of the mosques were told to organise meetings to explain the threat to the Shariat.

The groundswell of fundamentalism in Indore was echoed by Muslims in other parts of the country. There were meetings in Bombay and even distant Srinagar, where at one meeting Muslim leaders from all over the country swore to die rather than allow any interference in the Shariat. In Patna. on November 24, the police had to fire on a violent mob protesting against the court's verdict. Ibrahim Sulaiman Sait, MP and president of the Indian Union Muslim League demanded that Section 125 of the CRPC be amended to exclude Muslims and G.M.Banatwalla, another Muslim League MP moved a Criminal Law Amendment Bill to ensure that no court ever again interfered in Muslim personal law.

Even Ministers entered the fray. Arif Mohammed Khan, minister of state for energy gave an impassioned but very progressive interpretation of the Koran during the last session of the Lok Sabha, arguing that it did allow for maintenance. Z.R.Ansari, minister of state for environment, got into the act, in the current session of the House by taking the opposite view. Ansari's stand was very much in keeping with that of the priests of Indore, and indeed of the majority of Muslims as well.

"Shah Bano did not need to go to the court and she only went because she made it a prestige issue. Her son can well afford to support her."Qutubbudin Ansari,secretary, Anjuman Islahul Muslimeen

The question that keeps popping up is: what actually made Shah Bano change her mind? She insists that the qazi (priest) had come to her house and explained the meaning of the Shariat to her and had then asked her to choose between Islam and the Supreme
Court judgement and as a good Muslim she had realised she must choose
Islam. Her son Jamil Ahmed denies that he or any of Shah Bano's
four other children put any pressure on her.

He also says there was no
threat of a social boycott of the family by the Muslims of Indore. "When we found out that the judgement amounted to interference in the
Shariat, we knew that it was wrong, that's all," he says. Though Shah
Bano may not have been locked up in a dark room and forced to ask for
withdrawal of the judgement, there is no doubt that the anger of local
Muslims influenced her.

But what most probably tilted the scales was the priests' promises to her that her meher (what her husband
endowed her with at the time of her marriage) which was Rs 3,000 in
silver coins in 1932 would be paid to her in silver, and will amount at
present value to nearly Rs 1,50,000. "This is her right," says Noori,
"we will issue afatwa (order) that her husband must pay her this
amount and if he does not action will be taken against him under the
Shariat." Nonetheless, Noori insists it is the responsibility of the
divorced woman's family and the community to look after her, not her
husband's.

Perhaps prompted by the publicity surrounding the Shah Bano case, the priests have set up a maintenance fund for divorced women recently to deal with cases like Shah Bano's. An organization called the Betul Mai already exists to look after needy members of the community including widows and divorcees. But few divorcees come to them for help, and the reason for this, according to Qutubbudin Ansari, secretary of the Anjuman Islahul Muslimeen, is that contrary to the popularly held impression most divorced Muslim women remarry. "Our prophet himself married a widow, so in Islam it is considered a good thing to marry a widow or divorcee." he says.

What if they are 65 years old when their husbands divorce them? "Then it is for their blood relatives to look after them," says Ansari. "Even in Shah Bano's case she did not need to go the court and she only went because she made it a prestige issue. Her son Jamil earns at least Rs 1,400 per month and can well afford to support her," he adds. Shah Bano, however, says she asked for maintenance because she needed it. Her husband had even tried to kick her out of the house when he divorced her and she had to fight a court case to keep it.

The worst consequence of the Shah Bano battle has been the Hindu-Muslim confrontation that has developed over it all over the country and particularly in Indore. "At the press conference," says Ansari. "when she wanted the Supreme Court to withdraw its judgement a Hindu reporter from a local daily actually asked us, 'will you go off to Pakistan if it doesn't?'. Muslims are very upset that the Hindus have taken the whole thing as a chance to score points against us."

Ansari, as a Congress(I) worker had warned the party high command that the judgement would result in a wave of fundamentalism so great that no progressive Muslim would dare to open his mouth again. His warning was prophetic, and Muslims in Indore plan to start a movement demanding that the CrPC be amended, which is likely to turn into a countrywide movement. Shah Bano's request that the Supreme Court reverse its decision in her case is unprecedented and raises a lot of disturbing questions. Her changed stand has proved that fundamentalism is as strong as ever in the Muslim community.

Get real-time alerts and all the news on your phone with the all-new India Today app. Download from